Cabrera EJ

[Lindsay]

There are several issues here with the PFX graphic. First and foremost, Pitch #6 has a pz of 3.41, but Brooks shows it as higher than 3.5. Why? Several reasons.

What you'll notice in looking at the raw PFX data is that each pitch can have a different strike zone height. For instance, with this at-bat, each of the six pitches had different vertical strike zone limits - for pitch #1, for instance, the system reported that Cabrera's hollow-of-the-knee (lower point) was located at 1.6 feet off the ground and his midpoint (upper point) was at 3.6. For pitch #2, those bounds were 1.65 and 3.53, etc. to the last pitch of the at-bat of 1.67 and 3.48.

As you can see, the zone moves during an AB so that if you're going to show a chart for all the pitches of an at-bat, any one drawn zone will not be accurate. In an effort to normalize this, Brooks has a measure called norm_ht, which attempts to normalize the zone by a "stretch" factor for each pitch.

Consequently, this destroys the concept of vertical accuracy.

For pitch #6 specifically, our strike zone upper limit (sz_top) is 3.48; pitch fx captured the pitch's height as 3.41 feet. With pz of 3.41 and sz_top of 3.48, we conclude that pz < sz_top, which means the pitch was thrown lower than the upper limit of the strike zone; all else equal, it was a strike.

But the Brooks graph shows it as a ball (and considerably so), with a value greater than 3.5 even though PFX's raw # for pz is 3.41. Why?

Recall norm_ht. Due to the idea of stretch, a changing vertical zone, and a few other factors, the Brooks chart is not reliable for calling balls/strikes. This is similarly why sites like Baseball-Savant have umpire accuracies below 90% while MLB has then at 95%+. Because Brooks/B-S are trying to build a one-size-fits-all model to make it easy for the casual fan to see a graphic. It's not accurate for balls/strikes, but it's presented that way and it simply works for the average fan who doesn't really care about the science behind PFX or what pitch calling truly is.

This is one of the reasons I don't use Brooks and PitchInfo anymore for my analysis: It's just unreliable. I've attached an image with an overlay of where Pitch #6 really was tracked by PFX (aka MLB GD). The two red lines are px and pz as reported by the system (pz 3.41), the blue line is the sz_top of 3.48 reported for pitch #6. If I were to do the entire at-bat (pitches #1 through 6), there would be way too many lines on this graph for it to be legible.

[TheRockawayKid]

I'll go out on a limb and say .... 99.9999% of the time, at the MLB level, ....this is a ball

I'll agree with you on that. Heck, if you asked most MLB fans what the top of the strike zone was, they'd say the belt. 

[Platejob29]

You guys aren't calling that a strike with all of that movement by the catcher, sorry but no way Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I'm getting that as a strike all day because if I don't my evals aren't gonna look very good. If your evaluators don't want it called a strike then you can get away without calling a strike. Oh and Jeff sorry I didn't get back to you about you being in town. I had a lot on my plate this week. Hopefully we will get another chance to catch up.

[johnnyg08]

Yeah, if I'm locked in and having a great day, I'm grabbing that pitch too. 

[lawump]

If I was umpiring in the Arizona Fall League or as a AAA fill-in or as an MLBer, I'd call that a strike if I wanted to either be promoted to MLB (if I was a AFL ump or AAA fill-in) or be awarded a post-season assignment (if I was an MLBer).  That's the name of the game with PFX.

I'm never calling that pitch (at least not intentionally) a strike on the NCAA Div. 1 or 2 level, in American Legion, or high school...at least not until they start using PFX at those levels.  And that's me being blunt and honest. 

[Thunderheads]

No, the chart is not adjusted.  According to @Gil: Owner - UEFL, the pitch was officiated correctly based on the data (which isn't always accurately reflected on the chart).  The bottom line is, Cabrera had nothing to complain about.

According to one of the articles, Cederstrom ejected him because as Cabrera was walking to the dugout, he told him to tell Wolcott to do his job.

Oh, and @Thunderheads, don't be such a homer!

Steve, don't even try to call me a homer. I have been hating on the Tigers for the last couple years, this season is just the culmination of all of their errors. I would be saying the exact same thing regardless of who the strike was called upon My point is, most of you would call that a ball in the exact same situation in your games, based on location, movement and the catchers movement. I'm not necessarily saying its not a strike or did not hit any part of the strike zone, I'm saying you wouldn't call a strike. Don't just say you would also called a strike just because it was called a strike on a major league baseball field Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Thunderheads]

If I was umpiring in the Arizona Fall League or as a AAA fill-in or as an MLBer, I'd call that a strike if I wanted to either be promoted to MLB (if I was a AFL ump or AAA fill-in) or be awarded a post-season assignment (if I was an MLBer).  That's the name of the game with PFX.

I'm never calling that pitch (at least not intentionally) a strike on the NCAA Div. 1 or 2 level, in American Legion, or high school...at least not until they start using PFX at those levels.  And that's me being blunt and honest. 

@lawump .... finally someone with the cojones to say what I have been trying to say :-) Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

Steve, don't even try to call me a homer. I have been hating on the Tigers for the last couple years, this season is just the culmination of all of their errors. I would be saying the exact same thing regardless of who the strike was called upon My point is, most of you would call that a ball in the exact same situation in your games, based on location, movement and the catchers movement. I'm not necessarily saying its not a strike or did not hit any part of the strike zone, I'm saying you wouldn't call a strike. Don't just say you would also called a strike just because it was called a strike on a major league baseball field Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Jeff, the homer comment was in jest. I understand your point about whether any of us at lower levels would call it a strike. You're probably right. My point is that your point is irrelevant because this play happened on an MLB field, and it was correctly called a strike there, so Miggy should STFU.

[Thunderheads]

Jeff, the homer comment was in jest. I understand your point about whether any of us at lower levels would call it a strike. You're probably right. My point is that your point is irrelevant because this play happened on an MLB field, and it was correctly called a strike there, so Miggy should

STFU

.

Sorry Steve I didn't realize that .....you did not use a smiley, my fault. Miguel Cabrera has never learned to shut his mouth has he..... :no: Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[johnnyg08]

If I was umpiring in the Arizona Fall League or as a AAA fill-in or as an MLBer, I'd call that a strike if I wanted to either be promoted to MLB (if I was a AFL ump or AAA fill-in) or be awarded a post-season assignment (if I was an MLBer).  That's the name of the game with PFX.

I'm never calling that pitch (at least not intentionally) a strike on the NCAA Div. 1 or 2 level, in American Legion, or high school...at least not until they start using PFX at those levels.  And that's me being blunt and honest. 

You'd call it in MiLB but not in High School?  Your FED & American Legion ball must be a lot better ball than what we have overall.  Our games would be very long if we don't grab those.  Not judging, just sayin' 

[ricka56]

I'm never calling that pitch (at least not intentionally) a strike on the NCAA Div. 1 or 2 level, in American Legion, or high school...at least not until they start using PFX at those levels.  And that's me being blunt and honest. 

I am the same way. I don't call a high strike at varsity HS, but the more and more I see it being called in MLB games, the more I think that maybe I should. Usually big league changes trickle down to lower levels. I think that MLBU not calling high strikes (before PFX) was where we lower level umpires got the notion that that was the correct way to call B/S. Now I'm not so sure and considering getting more of the high strikes...it'll be hell until I get a handle on where that new border is at.  

[lawump]

I have no problem calling a high strike.  I have a problem calling a strike on a pitch where the catcher sets up low and outside and then catches it up and in...and the pitch just may or may not have "nicked" the strike zone.  Again, if I ever have to deal with PFX I will change my approach, but I'm not giving a borderline strike when the pitcher misses his spot by that much.  (Again, the pitch was caught on the complete opposite side of the strike zone (if it did, in fact, catch the strike zone) from where the catcher set up.)  If I called that a strike, they'll be burning down the dugouts at any level at which I call games.

[RichMSN]

I am the same way. I don't call a high strike at varsity HS, but the more and more I see it being called in MLB games, the more I think that maybe I should. Usually big league changes trickle down to lower levels. I think that MLBU not calling high strikes (before PFX) was where we lower level umpires got the notion that that was the correct way to call B/S. Now I'm not so sure and considering getting more of the high strikes...it'll be hell until I get a handle on where that new border is at.  

I call a high strike at every level I work - from LL to college.  The NCAA told me to call that pitch, so I do.  If it's good enough for them, it's certainly good enough for HS games.

[Jimurray]

I call a high strike at every level I work - from LL to college.  The NCAA told me to call that pitch, so I do.  If it's good enough for them, it's certainly good enough for HS games.

Just don't call the high ball a strike.

[Thunderheads]

Let's make sure of something however, .....   I never said that I didn't like the fact that high-strikes were being called, or, that I wouldn't or don't call high-strikes.  I'm specifically referring to THIS particular high strike that looks like it's coming in tight, and F2 is doing a jig to try and catch it.   THAT TYPE of high pitch TYPICALLY won't get called a strike at most levels (regardless of if it was called here in the OP) .... 

[stkjock]

I hope someone can expand on something so that this layman can better understand please.

 

The zone is defined by rule as I understand it, then tradition or practice over time as altered that zone more than once from the reading I have done on UE, additionally each umpire has their own understanding of said zone.  

So if a pitch is in an umpires zone, why does the fact that the pitch did not hit the "spot/mitt", causing the catcher to have to make a dramatic move to catch the ball, prompt the PU to not call it a strike?  

Maybe a odd analogy, in basketball, a player attempts a bank shot, it misses and get nothing but net the team is awarded 2 points.

Why is intention at all considered?

 

Thanks in advance for the insights

[noumpere]

Before replay:  The pitch looks like a ball to both dugouts when the catcher moves that much.  So, if the umpire calls it a strike, one dugout burns down, while the other thinks "we got away with one and this umpire sucks."  So, to survive, umpires "learned" to call that pitch a ball.

[basejester]

So if a pitch is in an umpires zone, why does the fact that the pitch did not hit the "spot/mitt", causing the catcher to have to make a dramatic move to catch the ball, prompt the PU to not call it a strike? 

To avoid bitching from the people who are watching how the ball is received and have no other information.

[Thunderheads]

To avoid bitching from the people who are watching how the ball is received and have no other information.

No, because it doesn't appear to be a strike with all of the movement going on during the pitch .........

[maven]

So if a pitch is in an umpires zone, why does the fact that the pitch did not hit the "spot/mitt", causing the catcher to have to make a dramatic move to catch the ball, prompt the PU to not call it a strike?  

There's another problem here. How do we know the pitch is in the zone? Sure we track it, but we track it all the way to the mitt. Where and how the pitch hits the mitt is part of the info we use to call a pitch, and when F2 effs it up badly, he can make a borderline strike look like an obvious ball.

So umpires who call such pitches might get fooled along with everyone else: they're not necessarily trying to deceive people.

That said, at the levels I work, I try not to let a bad F2 screw is pitcher over, and I slow down and try to correct for bad technique as I process the info. That can require disregarding some of the info I get, in order to replay the pitch and get borderline strikes.

This approach makes me popular with pitchers and unpopular with 3B coaches.

[JaxRolo]

Players are whiners. Got to the dugout. Nothing good can come out of arguing with an Umpire.

[basejester]

There are two different things going on here:

1. The catcher moves and the umpire doesn't see a pitch correctly.
2. The catcher moves and the umpire doesn't call what he believes based on tracking the ball through the air.

Both things might be happening to varying degrees on the same pitch.  I took @stkjock 's question as referring to #2.  We've seen the friggin' rectangle and the dot; the pitch was objectively  a strike.

[stkjock]

Before replay:  The pitch looks like a ball to both dugouts when the catcher moves that much.  So, if the umpire calls it a strike, one dugout burns down, while the other thinks "we got away with one and this umpire sucks."  So, to survive, umpires "learned" to call that pitch a ball.

To avoid bitching from the people who are watching how the ball is received and have no other information.

I understand the sentiment, and defer to your experience, however as a layman, it seems that is the wrong reason to make the calls.  I'm in a industry that is HEAVY with rules that need to be followed if one wants to maintain their career and freedom, so I tend to have a "by the book" view on many things.  I know not everything is black and white and sometimes by view causes friction.

No, because it doesn't appear to be a strike with all of the movement going on during the pitch .........

There's another problem here. How do we know the pitch is in the zone? Sure we track it, but we track it all the way to the mitt. Where and how the pitch hits the mitt is part of the info we use to call a pitch, and when F2 effs it up badly, he can make a borderline strike look like an obvious ball.

So umpires who call such pitches might get fooled along with everyone else: they're not necessarily trying to deceive people.

That said, at the levels I work, I try not to let a bad F2 screw is pitcher over, and I slow down and try to correct for bad technique as I process the info. That can require disregarding some of the info I get, in order to replay the pitch and get borderline strikes.

This approach makes me popular with pitchers and unpopular with 3B coaches.

great insight Maven - Thank you

Never once crossed my mind that any deception was involved.

Seems to me that your approach is one I would want to see at my games.

There are two different things going on here:

1. The catcher moves and the umpire doesn't see a pitch correctly.
2. The catcher moves and the umpire doesn't call what he believes based on tracking the ball through the air.

Both things might be happening to varying degrees on the same pitch.  I took @stkjock 's question as referring to #2.  We've seen the friggin' rectangle and the dot; the pitch was objectively  a strike.

Thanks Jester - that really makes a lot of sense.  Yes it was more #2 for the point of my question, if the PU tracks the ball threw the zone, believes it a strike based on that, IMO, the place the ball is caught should not be relevant to this layman.  I understand that the catch & frame can give added data to make a call, however on a breaking pitch with very good movement that added data can be a poor input for the call.

 

Side note - I want to thank all for continuing to add to my baseball knowledge, I'm very glad I found this site. 

 

 

 

[basejester]

I understand the sentiment, and defer to your experience, however as a layman, it seems that is the wrong reason to make the calls.  I'm in a industry that is HEAVY with rules that need to be followed if one wants to maintain their career and freedom, so I tend to have a "by the book" view on many things.  I know not everything is black and white and sometimes by view causes friction.

I believe that's the highest ethical ground and a good principle.  A pragmatic umpire uses the way the ball is received as a tie-breaker on close pitches.

[noumpere]

 

I understand the sentiment, and defer to your experience, however as a layman, it seems that is the wrong reason to make the calls.  I'm in a industry that is HEAVY with rules that need to be followed if one wants to maintain their career and freedom, so I tend to have a "by the book" view on many things.  I know not everything is black and white and sometimes by view

Even though the strike zone is defined in the book, it's really "whatever the league wants it to be."

 

And, for a long time, MLB wanted it to be lower and wider than what was written, and to contain an element of "hitting the spot."  That has changed.

 

and, yes, they could have changed the rule book to match that description, but putting through even minor changes was very difficult.